Roller v. County of San Diego

S.D. California

Roller v. County of San Diego

DecidedJune 22, 2022

Docket3:22-cv-00696

StatusUnknown

This text of Roller v. County of San Diego (Roller v. County of San Diego) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Roller v. County of San Diego, (S.D. Cal. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ERIC ROLLER, Case No.: 22cv0696 DMS (BLM)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING APPLICATION 13 v. FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT 14 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, 15 Defendant. 16 17 This case comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s application for entry of Defendant’s 18 default. Defendant filed an opposition to Plaintiff’s request, which states two copies of the 19 Summons and Complaint were delivered to the Clerk of the San Diego County Board of 20 Supervisors. The first was hand-delivered on May 19, 2022, followed by a copy delivered 21 by U.S. Mail and received on May 31, 2022. Apparently, the County did not deliver a copy 22 of the Summons and Complaint to County Counsel until May 31, 2022, and based on that 23 delivery date, County Counsel calendared its response date as June 21, 2022. However, 24 based on the hand-delivery date of May 19, 2022, the County should have filed its response 25 by June 9, 2022. There being no response by that date, Plaintiff filed the present request. 26 Although a default has not yet been entered, the Court looks to the factors that would 27 apply to a motion to set aside a default in deciding Plaintiff’s request. Those factors are 28 “‘(1) whether [the defendant] engaged in culpable conduct that led to the default; (2) 1 || whether [the defendant] had a meritorious defense; or (3) whether reopening the default 2 ||judgment would prejudice [the plaintiff].”” Franchise Holding II, LLC v. Huntington 3 || Restaurants Group, Inc., 375 F.3d 922, 925-26 (9th Cir. 2004) (quoting Am. Ass’n of 4 || Naturopathic Physicians v. Hayhurst, 227 F.3d 1104, 1008 (9th Cir. 2000)). Based on the 5 record presently before the Court, all of these factors would weigh in favor of setting aside 6 ||a default. Accordingly, Plaintiff's request for entry of default is respectfully denied. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 Dated: June 22, 2022 em Dh 9 an Yn. 10 Hon. Dana M. Sabraw, Chief Judge United States District Court 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ERIC ROLLER, Case No.: 22cv0696 DMS (BLM)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING APPLICATION 13 v. FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT 14 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, 15 Defendant. 16 17 This case comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s application for entry of Defendant’s 18 default. Defendant filed an opposition to Plaintiff’s request, which states two copies of the 19 Summons and Complaint were delivered to the Clerk of the San Diego County Board of 20 Supervisors. The first was hand-delivered on May 19, 2022, followed by a copy delivered 21 by U.S. Mail and received on May 31, 2022. Apparently, the County did not deliver a copy 22 of the Summons and Complaint to County Counsel until May 31, 2022, and based on that 23 delivery date, County Counsel calendared its response date as June 21, 2022. However, 24 based on the hand-delivery date of May 19, 2022, the County should have filed its response 25 by June 9, 2022. There being no response by that date, Plaintiff filed the present request. 26 Although a default has not yet been entered, the Court looks to the factors that would 27 apply to a motion to set aside a default in deciding Plaintiff’s request. Those factors are 28 “‘(1) whether [the defendant] engaged in culpable conduct that led to the default; (2) 1 || whether [the defendant] had a meritorious defense; or (3) whether reopening the default 2 ||judgment would prejudice [the plaintiff].”” Franchise Holding II, LLC v. Huntington 3 || Restaurants Group, Inc., 375 F.3d 922, 925-26 (9th Cir. 2004) (quoting Am. Ass’n of 4 || Naturopathic Physicians v. Hayhurst, 227 F.3d 1104, 1008 (9th Cir. 2000)). Based on the 5 record presently before the Court, all of these factors would weigh in favor of setting aside 6 ||a default. Accordingly, Plaintiff's request for entry of default is respectfully denied. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 Dated: June 22, 2022 em Dh 9 an Yn. 10 Hon. Dana M. Sabraw, Chief Judge United States District Court 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Roller v. County of San Diego, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roller-v-county-of-san-diego-casd-2022.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack